Our problems derive from a populace who cannot critically think, believes in fairy tales, and acts against their own interest because of certain wedge issues (frequently stemming from intense belief in said fairy tales).

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

Our problems derive from a populace who cannot critically think, believes in fairy tales, and acts against their own interest because of certain wedge issues (frequently stemming from intense belief in said fairy tales).

If the government were powerless to force you to live your life a certain way, you would have nothing to fear from these people you so despise.

If the government were powerless to force you to live your life a certain way, you would have nothing to fear from these people you so despise.

But then the government would also be powerless to do all of the wonderful things it can do--so no thanks. I'd rather just work on getting people to stop believing in their fairy tales. Jesus is Santa Claus for adults*.

*I use the term adult loosely here since it's so fucking childish to adhere to a religion.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

Our problems derive from a populace who cannot critically think, believes in fairy tales, and acts against their own interest because of certain wedge issues (frequently stemming from intense belief in said fairy tales).

Perhaps if we just gassed them or shot them all the problems would go away per your reasoning. Maybe we could just count them as 3/5th of a person for representation purposes but not allow them to vote.

Perhaps if we just gassed them or shot them all the problems would go away per your reasoning. Maybe we could just count them as 3/5th of a person for representation purposes but not allow them to vote.

Well, that's absurd. Why is it that you are always the one who is quick to bring up gassing or shooting people? You're kinda fucked up. Seriously.

Anyway, Godwin's Law invoked, you lose. Pay up. You owe me three Internets.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

State governments with newly elected Republicans slash revenues and then lay off thousands of government workers to help meet the budget shortfall. Gee, I wonder why unemployment is artificially inflated.

And where's the trickle down? The rich have had the Bush tax rates for basically 10 years now. Wall Street recovered. CEO pay went up 23% last year. Where are the jobs? The greedy fucks at the top don't care to piss a little money our way. Trickle down DOES NOT WORK. Supply side DOES NOT WORK.

And if you claim that the stimulus Obama passed doesn't work, you are destroying your own argument--the stimulus was 40% tax cuts at the Republicans' behest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR

Our problems derive from a populace who cannot critically think, believes in fairy tales, and acts against their own interest because of certain wedge issues (frequently stemming from intense belief in said fairy tales).

Ironic that you'd criticize "the populace" for lack of critical thinking skills, when you openly embrace the LIE that public sector employees are causing unemployment.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I'm regularly told that the health insurance companies are pretty much evil, greedy money grubbers who simply want to take my premium payments until I get sick and then cut me off and deny my claims. Perhaps I exaggerate a bit, but certainly not that much.

But...I have other kinds of insurance. For example I have insurance for my home and car. And today I got an email from my insurance company saying this:

Quote:

Claims experts are on alert as a result of the severe weather in your area.

We hope that you are safe, and we want you to know that we're here for you. Contact us anytime, day or night, if you need to report a claim.

We're glad that you're our customer, and we promise to be there for you when you need us most.

Complete with their toll-free phone number and links to where I can file a claim if needed.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ruled that the health care reform laws requirement that nearly all Americans buy insurance is unconstitutional, a striking blow to the legislation. ...

The 2-1 ruling marks the first time a judge appointed by a Democrat has voted to strike down the mandate. Judge Frank Hull, who was nominated by former President Bill Clinton, joined Chief Judge Joel Dubina, who was appointed by George H.W. Bush, to strike down the mandate.

The percentage of American adults who lack health insurance coverage has not only increased during the presidency of Barack Obama, but it has continued to increase since Obama signed his signature piece of legislation last year mandating that by 2014 every American carry health insurance, according to a Gallup survey released today.

In 2008, when George W. Bush was president, according to Gallup, 14.9 percent of adult residents of the United States lacked health insurance coverage. That increased to 16.2 percent in 2009, the year that Obama was inaugurated, and to 16.4 percent in 2010, the year that Obama signed his law requiring that all Americans have health insurance.

In the first half of this year, according to data released by Gallup today, the percentage of adults in the United States lacking health insurance ticked up to 16.8 percent.

That conclusion is based on Gallup's interviews with 177,237 American adults from January through June of this year. The interviews were part of the ongoing Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index survey.

Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on March 23, 2010. It mandates that all Americans must purchase government-approved health insurance plans by 2014. Under the legislation, families earning less than 400 percent of the poverty level will receive a federal subsidy to buy insurance.

The constitutionality of the mandate is being challenged in federal court by more than half of the states.

It's okay, the government bureaucrat behind the desk cares more about us than the health insurance company executive behind the desk.

If we die because our heath care has been rationed by the government and it is illegal or ridiculously expensive to seek health care outside of that system, we find solace knowing that our death is for the "good of society".

We weren't talking about individual areas. We were talking about employment in general. Either way, the public sectors have not "taken it on the chin" as Obama states...certainly not overall.

Most of the states are really hurting as the jobs situation is not getting any better especially in the South and Mid West.Jobs that is what is Obama is touting now with his touting the American Jobs Act forcing it down the citizens throat as I can plainly see not letting up.

Most of the states are really hurting as the jobs situation is not getting any better especially in the South and Mid West.Jobs that is what is Obama is touting now with his touting the American Jobs Act forcing it down the citizens throat as I can plainly see not letting up.

Punctuation. It's important.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Wait a minute. Let me get this straight. One member posts an abusive message, and another one calls him out on it. Yet the one who was the victim of the abuse is at fault? Sounds like Republican ideals to me.

Wait a minute. Let me get this straight. One member posts an abusive message, and another one calls him out on it. Yet the one who was the victim of the abuse is at fault? Sounds like Republican ideals to me.

The distinction is apparently he did it via PM. You guys just do it in public messages so I guess there's no argument about that.

Wait a minute. Let me get this straight. One member posts an abusive message, and another one calls him out on it. Yet the one who was the victim of the abuse is at fault? Sounds like Republican ideals to me.

You guys are hilarious. Mumbo runs around lobbing horrendous and unprovoked personal attacks on anyone with whom he disagrees. So does BR. Then the three of you scream bloody murder when someone sends an offensive private message which Mumbo posts publicly.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Wait a minute. Let me get this straight. One member posts an abusive message, and another one calls him out on it. Yet the one who was the victim of the abuse is at fault? Sounds like Republican ideals to me.

Did I say anything about the message in the other threads? This is not about the message, this is about stalking someone around the forums about it cross thread. BR does this all the time. And BR was not the victim of the abusive post in question. You are not right, you are defending something that is not defensible. Sounds like hypocrisy to me.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

You guys are hilarious. Mumbo runs around lobbing horrendous and unprovoked personal attacks on anyone with whom he disagrees. So does BR. Then the three of you scream bloody murder when someone sends an offensive private message which Mumbo posts publicly.

When "someone" sends an abusive private message?

Don't you mean YOU?

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

I'm sure I could dig up a few abusive one from folks on here. There's a reason they are called PRIVATE though and you ignore that point entirely. People don't have to receive private messages. They can turn the feature off.

Oh and on the thread topic, Obama's health care plan is going down in flames so let's focus on one private message to ignore the fact that it hasn't accomplished a single thing it intended.

Oh and on the thread topic, Obama's health care plan is going down in flames so let's focus on one private message to ignore the fact that it hasn't accomplished a single thing it intended.

It's got to be uncomfortable for some to discuss the fact that Obama himself now admits the long term care portion of ObamaCare is unworkable. Especially since we're on page 48 of a thread that has argued that fact for a long time.

It's got to be uncomfortable for some to discuss the fact that Obama himself now admits the long term care portion of ObamaCare is unworkable. Especially since we're on page 48 of a thread that has argued that fact for a long time.

You're right. Obama's plan sucked. It was a Republican plan, with few Liberal aspects to it. Let's ignore that fact.

He should have resurrected Hillary care. The country was ready for it. Now we're going to be stuck in the medical dark ages for another 20 years while the rest of the Civilized world is up to date.

I have a place in my heart for the USA and things need to get constructive real soon (not pointing the finger at you, just saying in general).

The signs are not promising. Obama was at the G20 in Cannes looking like the Euro crisis was "Europe's problem", not realising the network of US, London and European banks that now have the whole world by the balls, except for China (reading up on their financial system history will tell you why).

I'd agree with him there but he was also a bit stuck in his ruts on thinking. As he noted, death is the great change agent of life. He could never see himself as anything other than the outsider fighting the man, even after it was very clear he was indeed the man. While he was able to personally move Apple ahead almost by shear force of will, all the many other organizations that often throw out the same sort of occasional leftist canards have suffered badly. EDIT: As an example within the book it notes that he really felt the N.Y. Times was important and thus he wanted to help it. Yet he ended up doing a deal with Murdoch because Murdoch was willing to meet terms and make money with them.

Quote:

I have a place in my heart for the USA and things need to get constructive real soon (not pointing the finger at you, just saying in general).

The U.S. might still have within it the capacity to renew and reform itself. Regardless of whether it does or not though, it is clear that Europe does not. Likewise it is very clear that India, China and others have not truly reformed themselves enough to take the place of the U.S. nor, especially in the case of China, will they be able to overcome their racial/cast and demographic troubles.

Quote:

The signs are not promising. Obama was at the G20 in Cannes looking like the Euro crisis was "Europe's problem", not realising the network of US, London and European banks that now have the whole world by the balls, except for China (reading up on their financial system history will tell you why).

The only way a bank can ever control anything is with debt. Refuse to take on debt and deal with tangible and real assets and the problem for you personally is largely solved. The reason the world is propping up banks is because the world wants to continue to finance all the programs they use to buy votes and along with them, dependency.

I have a place in my heart for the USA and things need to get constructive real soon (not pointing the finger at you, just saying in general).

The signs are not promising. Obama was at the G20 in Cannes looking like the Euro crisis was "Europe's problem", not realising the network of US, London and European banks that now have the whole world by the balls, except for China (reading up on their financial system history will tell you why).

It is Europe's problem. It should be Europe's problem. If some of our banks over invested, let them fail. The market has to start working or we'll never get out of this.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

“We acknowledge some discomfort with the government’s failure to advance any clear doctrinal principles limiting congressional mandates that any American purchase any product or service in interstate commerce. But to tell the truth, those limits are not apparent to us, either because the power to require the entry into commerce is symmetrical with the power to prohibit or condition commercial behavior, or because we have not yet perceived a qualitative limitation. That difficulty is troubling, but not fatal, not least because we are interpreting the scope of a long-established constitutional power, not recognizing a new constitutional right.”

Some discomfort about saying limited government is essentially a fiction? Silberman’s distinction between interpreting the scope of a government power and recognizing a right is spurious because rights begin where powers end.

So argues Florida International University’s Elizabeth Price Foley, constitutional litigator for the Institute for Justice. She is amazed by Silberman’s disregard of “the inherently symbiotic relationship between the scope of government powers and individual rights.”

She says Silberman has two false assumptions. One is that Congress compelling acts of commerce is “symmetrical” with prohibiting or regulating commerce. The other is that the lack of any principle to limit Congress when purporting to regulate interstate commerce is unimportant because it concerns only government power, not an important liberty interest of individuals.

Silberman’s supposed symmetry between compulsion and regulation ignores the momentous invasion of liberty by the former. If compulsion is authorized whenever Congress touches anything affecting commerce, this Leviathan power dwarfs all other enumerated powers.

Individual liberties, well those aren't really important when the state has objectives to accomplish.

Quote:

Judge Brett Kavanaugh, dissenting on the D.C. circuit court, dryly praised Silberman’s “candor” in “admitting that there is no real limiting principle” to the Commerce Clause jurisprudence embraced by the court’s majority. Kavanaugh, like Foley, emphasizes the asymmetry between, on the one hand, regulating or prohibiting commercial activity and, on the other hand, compelling such activity.

Compelling you to earn the money for and purchase certain items from the state. Most of us would call that slavery. Soon we will all be the 1% in the regard that the only concern the state will have is how we can serve the collective and blame us when we don't somehow slave away hard enough for them while ignoring all of our own concerns.

Quote:

There is an abdication of judicial duty in Silberman’s complacent conclusion, which is: We can articulate no limit on Congress’s power flowing from the Commerce Clause; get over it. This might galvanize a Supreme Court majority to say “Enough!” and begin protecting individual liberty from a Commerce Clause that the court itself has transmogrified into an anti-constitutional gift to Congress of a virtually unlimited police power. This case can begin restoring Madison’s constitutional architecture for a government limited by the enumeration of its powers.

Unlimited police power.... don't worry about that. It isn't as if the man seeking it is calling us all lazy, bitter, soft and whatever else he thinks will compel that which even trillions haven't brought about, a utopia in which the collective wins and the individual is but a slave.

A survey of Colorado primary care doctors found most are reluctant to take a new patient on basic Medicare, the government health insurance for people 65 and over.

Colorado Public News called family, general practice and internal medicine physicians across the state, using the nation’s official website that lists thousands of doctors the site claims treats patients on Medicare. Of 100 contacted, only 34 said they would readily accept a new patient.

Of the remainder, 40 said they would not add a new patient on traditional Medicare. Another 26 limit new clients, making decisions on a case-by-case basis, or placing patients on waiting lists of up to six months. That adds up to 66 – or two-thirds – refusing or limiting new patients.

The questions focused on traditional Medicare, which is used by most recipients.

Several doctors said they hesitate to take Medicare patients because Medicare doesn’t pay enough, pays late, and can require a nightmare of paperwork and repeated telephone calls.

Quote:

The findings contrast sharply with the government’s statement that 94 percent of Colorado physicians take Medicare. Colorado Public News found that while many doctors may be signed up for Medicare, or be paid by Medicare for a certain number of patients – that doesn’t mean those doctors will accept any new patients.

Quote:

Dr. Jonathan Zonca, of Ascent Family Medicine in Denver, is taking new Medicare patients. But he said he hesitated after figuring out that Medicare had paid half of what other insurance plans did, over three years.

Quote:

Medicare also pays more slowly than other insurance plans, doctors say. Ascent has been waiting more than six months for $55,000 due from Medicare, Zonca said. Medicare officials have provided no assurances that the payments will ever come, he added.

I wonder what will happen if something similar to this happens under Obamacare. Or, what will happen in this case for that matter.

Senior citizens are effectively under a program sorta like "universal, non means-tested healthcare" through medicare and doctors are dropping them because the payer's (the US governments) "costly red tape" is causing them nothing but grief. Did you read the article?

That's not even mentioning the effect your proposed solution would have on healthcare costs (direct and indirect). Yikes!